User talk:Emoscopes/Archive03

Image:Westland Welkin.png

Shorts type designations

Avro Arrow

Nice logo!

Aviation Newsletter delivery

TFD

List of shipbuilders and shipyards

BAE Systems evolution

Congratulations!

:Image:Supermarine Spiteful.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

WikiWings Award

FPC

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

I like you more and more!

Canna

Trivia

Your Pic's FPC Promotion

Barnstar

Discussion pages

Battle ship drawings

Our mutual "friend"

UK geogrpaphy stub

County class cruiser

River class minesweeper

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

Ship names

Animated turret

Category:Military of Wales

Lovely map!

Sources of jet engines pictures

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

Shipping areas of the North Sea

Wikimedia UK

union article

Royal Navy

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

Shipping Forecast Map Query

Tidying Up of Build & Cost Tables

HMS Rocket (H92)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Request: Captain Class frigates

Caledonian Sleeper

Template:Caledonian Sleeper

Thank you

Hey Mister Artist Man

Midland Bank

Wikimedia Commons

Image:Caledonian Sleeper branding.png listed for deletion

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

Fair use disputed for Image:Eden Roc album.jpg

Image source problem with Image:Armstrong Siddeley.png

BAE/British Shipbuilders templates

Sorry mate

Image source problem with Image:BEA logo.png

DEFAULTSORT magic word

Image source problem with Image:Caledonian sleeper branding.png

C and D class destroyer

; Archives
	everything up to October 2006; October 2006 - February 2007; March 2007 - October 2007;

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Emoscopes.

Just thought I'd say what a great illustration! I had noticed your RN missile drawings before and this is also to the same high standard - First-rate!. Just a point and sorry to nitpick, but the Welkin part of the name doesn't really need italicising, as it's part of the proper name/designation - it's a great image though and thanks for doing it!

BTW, I could give you suggestions for other UK aircraft articles, especially some of the more obscure types, that would greatly benefit from similar excellent images but if I did I suspect you would be kept busy for a long time! - LOL! Regards, Ian Dunster 21:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Emoscopes.

Just had a look at your DeviantART drawings - very nice! BTW, the correct designation for the TSR.2 was with a full-stop/period - I have a pdf of Roland Beamont's flight test reports somewhere and it refers to it as the TSR.2 - the Wikipdia entry is incorrect in using a '-', as are quite a few other sources.

As for suggestions, how about a nice Supermarine Spiteful XIV, or if you would prefer slightly later aircraft, a Short SC.1 or even, (if you're feeling really masochistic - LOL!), the Rolls-Royce TMR? - that's been awaiting an image for ages!

As for the V-bombers - yes - excellent - how about separate ones (perhaps camouflaged?) for the individual aircraft articles and a combined one of all-three (Valiant, Vulcan & Victor) to-scale in anti flash white?

Regards, Ian Dunster 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a pain then - if you've BAC literature that uses both then there was obviously some confusion at the time. UPDATE: I've just checked the pdf (I scanned and OCRed it from a couple of issues of Aeroplane Monthly from 1982) and am usually verbatim in copying and would you believe it, the heading of the article is TSR.2 and the remainder of the articles use TSR-2 - B****r! - LOL - looks like the Wikipedia article was right in the first place! - I'll have to amend the List of AM Specs page again! - just done it.

BTW I noticed someone had re-named the Hawker Siddeley pages - thanks, as I'd noticed some were written with '-'

Regards, Ian Dunster 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy.

Thanks for the links to the ad pages - looks like BAC itself may not have finalised the format, or at least variations seem to have been the norm back then - or perhaps the person who originally typed-up the flight reports may have been unsure.

BTW, RE: TraceyR's comment below, I also had the problem with the Short SC.1 - I've seen it written as S.C.1, SC-1, SC.1, etc., - LOL!

Ian Dunster 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just seen the Image:Short SC.1.png image - again, excellent!

Ian Dunster 10:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Andy. I have put a reply on my talk page, to keep things in one place. Looking at the TSR.2 talk, I see that Shorts wasn't the only manufacturer with this problem! TraceyR 10:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Emoscopes, Thanks for your help on all the aircraft projects to which I have submitted my pittance of knowledge. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bzuk, without wanting to get involved I can see your problem, I have encountered it many times before, the basic problem is always people forget this is WP and treat it like their own domain. I added a "cool it" template and archived some of the older talkpage messages; the latter often helps prevent self-reference to earlier nonsense in a talkspace. If the problem persists, as I assume it will, there are more useful templates for talkspaces here; Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace. Emoscopes ^Talk 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I have offered to hold off modifying the political talk in Avro Arrow until July/07,in the hopes that a neutral POV editor volunteers.

Regardless of what some bitter publications claim,the current version is wrong, bordering on "bizarre'.

Really, this hoo-haw boils down to an 18 word edit I attempted to add for balance. Gloster meteor ( I'm not involved in THAT one) boils down to a debate over a two week gap in 1944.

whewwwwww.... thx Opuscalgary 16:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the Bristol logo BTW. Maury 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Emoscopes ^Talk 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. It's just VandalProof gets a little screwy sometimes. ~~Eugene 2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I presumed as much. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. I feel very strongly that this template is an excellent addition to Wikipedia (especially in its new form) and have made those views very clear on the deletion page. As for being an admin, no that doesn't exclude me from such a debate, particularly as I haven't been involved in its creation. Anyway, it's very clear what way the discussion is going!!

I would love to convert my BAE "evolution" diagrams to this format - the fact that a user can click on each of the companies rather than just view a list makes it ten times more useful in my opinion. Would you be able to point me in the direction of instructions about how to go about it? I had a quick look at current such templates with a view to simply adapting them, but its a bit daunting when you don't really know what your doing. Mark83 13:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I originally started the template in a graphical format inspired by your BAE Systems timeline, but the desire to add wikilinks led me via an abbortive image-map to the current format. I would be more than happy to create a BAE Systems template in the same vein, I had to work out what I was doing from square one, but I am now quite confident with it - the only thing I can't get to work is to get the template to appear collapsed rather than open when it is transcluded. I also fancy doing one for BAC and Hawker Siddeley at some point. Regards Emoscopes ^Talk 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Regarding converting the BAE timelines. I picked a pretty arbritary point, you could include all mergers back to the 1900s, but that might be too big. Regarding not being able to collapse it, could you not just use {{Navigation| templateName= | header = | color = | body =}}, placing the template in "body"? I have no idea myself, just a layman's suggestion! Mark83 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does collapse fine, just by default it is expanded, and I wanted the situation reversed to make it less obtrusive. It's just a minor niggle though. I think using a 1950 - present timeline would more than suffice and is about the limits that a page width could take if every year is represented. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the TfD. By the look of things your template is being defended to the death while we type.

Nice work on the List of shipbuilders and shipyards of late, as well as reworking your shipbuilders evolution into a far prettier reference point! At some point I'm finally going to transcribe a mass of shipbuilders into the list but before then I'm seriously wondering whether the format needs to be changed - e.g. reconciling mergers - should every single company be mentioned or do we only mention merged companies in passing under the title of the more famous parent? I'll raise the issue on the discussion at any rate - hopefully the naysayers will stop sniping for once.

By the by, from what I gather you're a whiz with imaging software (great website you have by the way, the gin poster is on my wall now). Have you ever thought about attempting an animation which shows the workings of a large calibre gun turret? I know that I'm still confused after years of studying them and watching videos, and I'm sure that an anim showing the intricacy of loading a 15" gun would make readers appreciate them a lot more. At least a good drawing of a British turret wouldn't go amiss, and judging by your drawings of Hood, Courageous, Dreadnought and Nelson you've got the skill. Cheers, Harlsbottom 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely won't disagree with you on the KGV turrets (hideous things), and a drawing of the 15" would certainly be most representative of the battleships most identified with the RN other than Dreadnought, (Queen Elizabeths, Royal Sovereigns, Hood, Vanguard). From what I've gathered (I have an A3 drawing of one on my desk), the Nelson turrets seem somewhat analogous to the 16"/45 turret I inspected on USS Massachusetts during the summer. Also this excellent article at Navweaps makes it sound somewhat roomier than the 15 turrets on the 15" and 14" ships. Anyway, I'm praying that Oscar Parkes' book on British BBs has some good turret drawings in, as otherwise I have to go buy an "anatomy of the ship" book and they are not cheap. Cheers, Harlsbottom 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a nice simplified schematic in Bennett's Naval Battles of the First World War, and I have 2 or 3 "how we'll beat the Hun" type books from the late 30s / early 40s, again with simplified diagrams to explain to young boys how we're going give Jerry a thrashing. My instinct would be to produce something more generalised than a faithful representation of the 15" turret, as that way the Yanks won't get their knickers in a twist, and it would be more suitable for a range of articles. There's a lot of good illustrations at http://www.hmshood.com/ . From my understanding of the Nelson's 16 inch turrets, the interlocking mechanism is unusally complicated and novel as a response to getting our fingers so badly burned at Jutland. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S, roll on October and the tasty graduate job and there will be a shiny copy of Campbell's Naval Weapons on its way to me :) Where did you get your hands on the A3 drawing, btw? Emoscopes ^Talk 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously need a copy of that, but the Parkes book has just blown out my bank account (700 pages though on British BBs, can't beat it). FYI before his death Campbell had cobbled together what is essentially "Naval Weapons of World War I". There's a growing campaign within the naval history community to get Conway or someone to publish it. Hopefully it will! I assume that you're getting one of the new copies of Naval Weapons of WWII that Conway is rolling out?

The drawing is one from a publication which lent itself to being blown up to A3 size. There are quite a few drawings on here - they're quite rough and some images are a sod to load, but they're better than nothing. Harlsbottom 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! I have a version of that image, what I think is a scan from Campbell I found kicking around the internet (probably many years ago). I presume it is the original as it is much cleaner yet almost identical. Unfortunately, although I have the annotation (parts 1-59), I don't have the key!!! So Im no clearer as to what all the parts do :( Emoscopes ^Talk 15:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two days ago I bought a copy of Hodges' The Big Gun in Wigtown - excellent book which gives a very detailed description of the working of a 15" turret with diagrams as well. On your animation, you show the gun loading cage descending a step for the cordite charges to be rammed into the breech. In reality (for all 15" variants from what Hodges writes) two layers of charges dropped from above into the space occupied by the shell in the cage. If you look on Youtube for "Bismarck", there's an excerpt from Sink the Bismarck which shows the loading of one of Vanguard's guns in that manner. Just thought I'd let you know! --Harlsbottom 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First things first, congratulations on a swift closure to the TFD discussion! As for the template, great work. Thank you. I have a few points about it. I hope you don't think I'm picking holes in it, it's 100% constructive criticism honestly.

Would it not look better to have a merger be symbolised not by collapsing to a single line, but to become a block? i.e. with the 1960 Hawker Siddeley merger, rather than collapse it down to a single line it be 4 rows high?
That would allow the elimination of gaps between Bristol/EE and Folland/DeHav.
I think The English Electric Company should be shown merging into just GEC. The line up to BAC could be confusing. I think the note covers it.
I see you didn't include the shipyards. I agree with that, it's redundant given it's covered in the other template.
I see you didn't include Tracor etc. I agree with that also, as it's more BAE Systems Inc. specific and just to include Tracor neglects many other imporant deals. Mark83 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. On the one hand GEC-Marconi was very much an electronics business and BAe an aircraft one, so the electronics side is important. On the other would it not be too big? Mark83 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks brilliant! I'm wondering about GEC though. I know I had it on my line diagram. I'm just thinking it would be better to show MES merging into BAE and ignore Marconi plc. I suggest splitting the GEC line into pieces to reflect the name changes:

GEC as the first segment, the same length as The English Electric Company
From there to 1987 have the GEC line "The Marconi Company"
From 1987 to BAE "GEC-Marconi/MES"

Let me know what you think. And thank you! Mark83 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Is this template based on another? I thinks this type of thing might work great for other pages, company histories, even aircraft production lines. I'd just like to take a look at any other examples before trying to work up omething for, for example, Cessna#Aircraft_models. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks for this. It says a lot about you that you are eager to highlight the contributions of others. Given that, and your very hard work on the BAE templates, please make me your first stop for help with any problems. Mark83 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo :) A little co-operation goes a long way on wikipedia, such a shame so many people forget that at times! Emoscopes ^Talk 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like your drawings and I hope you'll continue to be as productive as you have been so far. Congratulations, you received the first MoRsE-medal for this! --MoRsE 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy.

Very nice - thanks! - actually I WAS thinking of one of your nice coloured-in ones though, a la, your Image:Westland Welkin.png one - LOL, but I appreciate they take some time to do. The three-view looks pretty good though. I came across some excellent online plans of various aircraft somewhere a while ago and thought of you but was preoccupied with something else so didn't bookmark them. I'll see if I can find them again later. Ian Dunster 08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Found them! - here:[1] Ian Dunster 11:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank's Ian, that is a useful resource indeed and I have bookmarked it. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Andy - just found some others here:[2] . Ian Dunster 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

		Wikiwings
		For your contribution of orthographic 3-view drawings for aircraft articles. --Born2flie 16:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why thankyou :) hope you don't mind if I put that in my trophy cabinet for posterity's sake! Emoscopes ^Talk 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

An animated image that you created caught my eye, and I listed it as a Featured Picture Candidate. Unfortunatly, there have been some objections to the image, and I am unsure how to go about fixing them. If you are interested in helping to fix the objections, you can click this link and it will take you directly to the candidate :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I am honoured. I would be more than happy to comply with the minor suggestions to improve the image. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you for the quality of your animation. Please stay with us at WP:FPC, both as a creator and a reviewer. Alvesgaspar 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I, Yummifruitbat, hereby award this Graphic Designer's Barnstar to Emoscopes for rapidly implementing requested changes to his diagram at FPC and for the outstanding quality of his prolific contributions of diagrams, logos and artwork to aeronautical and naval articles. Fantastic work! --YFB ¿ 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your hard work. Hopefully we'll continue to see you at FPC where your input, especially on graphical nominations, would be highly valued. Happy editing, --YFB ¿ 09:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, it brings me great pleasure that people appreciate my contributions. Emoscopes ^Talk 09:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I know from experience that graphics work is very time-consuming - we're lucky to have contributors like yourself who're willing to donate their time and skills to illustrate our articles. The least we can do is say thanks occasionally :-) --YFB ¿ 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: [3] Mark83 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hehe, what can I say? I must be a likeable guy! :) Emoscopes ^Talk 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The List of islands of Scotland and its reference site Scottish Island Network - Population Statistics both have Canna and Sanday's population as 6 each. If you have a reference for the total of 17 I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support re Royal Navy trivia section. It's a constant irritation for me (not NPOV!) that these sections exist at all. They often become quite laughable and add little. The info should be held elsewhere, IMO, if at all. The RN is an extreme example: how many works of fiction, games, etc, would qualify for inclusion?! Folks at 137 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, Image:Animated gun turret.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emoscopes,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Animated gun turret.gif is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 20, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-09-20. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excelent .gif image and your ability to rapidly adress the FPC issues with it I herby award you The Original Barnstar. In a very real sense, this Featured Picture is as much yours as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, TomStar, I am still honoured by your nomination, you obviously know how to back a winner :) Emoscopes ^Talk 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page User talk:Bzuk Hi Bzuk. Just a heads up; it really isn't necessary to clean up others' comments on talk pages (like WP:AIRCRAFT recently), I know other people's poor spelling and grammar can be annoying, but as per WP:TALK, this runs contrary to the guidelines. If you must alter your own comments, it's always best to strike out your old comment using the s markup, so others can see what you previously wrote. Just a friendly pointer :) Emoscopes Talk 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I recall that someone else had once pointed that out but I simply forgot and had reverted to my usual editing of submissions that I have come across. Bzuk 22:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Andy,

I saw yout excellent battle ship drawings, e.g. Image:HMS Dreadnought (1911) profile drawing.png. Thanks!

They would be even more useful, if you could include a list of the sources you used to create these images.

--Stephan Schulz 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! These pictures were done a number of years ago, just for fun, and are entirely based on photos and I pulled off the internet, with a few low-quality line drawings used to get the initial proportions and layout correct. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been having trouble with him for a while. If you need help somewhere else just let me know. John Smith's 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Warnings won't change anything if he's on a floating IP. I suggest you contact an admin you know and see if they can ask someone to put semi-protection on the pages in question. Or put requests for semi-protection up on whatever wikipedia page it is. John Smith's 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I already have, I've copied User:Mark83 in on this, but if we wanted to get that IP range blocked in future, it seems we need a record of warnings issued, therefore I do intend to issue the warnings none the less. Anything that forces them into registering will make them a lot more controllable. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, didn't realise it was a wider problem. Yeah, building a case is the best way to go I think. As for protection, I'm not sure. Protection requires "high rate vandalism" - this vandalism is pretty low tempo - of all the affected pages on my watchlist they were all more often that not reverted before I saw them. Mark83 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Love the image for the Template:UK-geo-stub. It does have a minor error which I've noted at the Wikimedia Commons discussion page. I intend to replace that one at some stage with a correct one if that's OK. Can you let me know if you have any objections? beano 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise this, well spotted! I've fixed the image myself, hope I've got it right. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Better, but still looks a bit 'funny', though I'm probably just nitpicking at this stage so I'll probably leave it. If I do make a change (I probably won't now) I'll upload a new file instead of overwriting that one anyway so it'll be there for comparison. beano 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've 'borrowed' a couple of your userboxes to base my own userboxes like this one on, so feel free to 'borrow' them back ;) beano 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Love what you have done with the article! Double thumbs up!! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou! It's a little something I've been working on in my namespace. Still not complete, I've got some books in the post which should sort that out though :D Emoscopes ^Talk 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The WS Mk 9 was the generic name for the sweep gear fitted and included the tension measuring equipment, as well as the kites / depressors / otters - the description that you've added only applies to the sweep gear involved in influence sweeping, i.e. active rather than the more normal passive sweeping.

Cheers Ex-Pat-Bunting 15:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know a lot more about this than me, I've probably confused having two separate and incomplete descriptions of the sweeping gear. I take it what I described applies to the EDATS gear alone? Emoscopes ^Talk 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EDATS is a description of the tactic (Extra Deep Armed Team Sweeping) while WS Mk 9 refers to the sweep gear in general. I'll try and explain while also trying not to move into areas that could be seen to be covered by security classifications!

The WS Mk 9 was the full suite of minesweeping equipment fitted - the depth in the water of the sweep gear being controlled by the kite / otter / depressor attached to a control winch. There was also a tension measuring set-up which was used to ensure that the tension within the sweep wire was maintained around a target value.

The sweep gear could be used for influence sweeping (acoustic or magnetic) or for mechanical passive sweeping - in the influence role, the sweepers would tow a noise generator designed to mimic the sound and magnetic signatures of high value shipping to trigger ground mines (comparatively expensive and sophisticated). In the mechanical mode a sweep wire (basically a long length of steel rope) fitted at intervals with explosive cutters (think of a cold chisel driven by a small charge) was towed through the water at a desired depth; the trailing end was either connected to an otter / depressor below an Oropesa float (Oropesa sweeping - no hook up to other ships) or instead was passed to a consort ship (Armed Team Sweeping). The ED or Extra Deep bit was a speciality of the River Class. Passive sweeping of this nature was designed to counter the threat of moored mines (think floating spheres with horns reminiscent of WW2 films!) which compared to ground mines were extremely cheap and unsophisticated.

There's a pretty good (but dated) description of the basis of minesweeping at http://www.minesweepers.org.uk/sweeping.htm

I'm a little bit rusty on the details of this since the last time I was aboard a River Class MSF was HMS Arun on her delivery to Poole for conversion to NI Patrol Squadron. The last time I was onbaord when sweeping was carried out was about 1993. Ex-Pat-Bunting 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm adding them to the articles, if you know any others, please do! --AW 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this Image:Animated gun turret.gif, and after watching it a few times, there was something that didn't make sense. It claims that the lower lift column rotates with the turret (colored blue), if so how does the lower lift line up with the shell room and magazine? Or did you simplify the design to better illustrate the lifts and interlocks? --J Clear 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed in good faith the Royal Navy ships that you have added to the above category on 2 grounds;

Firstly, Military, in the strict British use of the word, pertains to "land" matters. Naval ships are not part of the military organisation.
Secondly, none of these ships are Welsh or part of a Welsh Navy. These ships are all British ships of the Royal Navy.

Your selection criterion for using this category appears to have been a Welsh connection in the name. However, I would strongly advise against this, or else we could put every ship with a Scottish or Irish or English connection in the name into such categories of convenience as "Military of..." and down to such ships as HMS Gambia in a category "Military of Gambia". It is my opinion that the Military of Wales category should be used solely for such items as Welsh regiments, forts and other uniquely Welsh items of militaria. I have canvassed some opinion here. Please do join in if you feel I have overstepped the mark. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As you started the discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, see answer there. Rgds, - Trident13 11:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did the previous map of the UK shipping forecast zones, and I must say, your replacement is definitely nicer looking. Thanks! Mlouns 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh -- and what software do you use to make that map? Mlouns 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I would like to to translate the writings on your jet engines pictures to Russian. If the XaraX sources of these pictures are preserved, please publish them or send them to me. Regards, MvR 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you created Image:UK shipping forecast zones.png. Would it be possible to do a version just showing the north sea areas to illustrate the North Sea article which is part of the current article improvement drive?— Rod ^talk 10:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

what is up with that manticore guy? Novium 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if my latest edit seems to have sparked a deep seated loathing of tonnage. I was simply trying to expand on the graphs and try and explain what they are showing as is mentioned in the peer review. I think that your latest edits to the talk page and in particular in the edit summary are inflammatory and insulting. If you think i have made a mistake be bold and remove the offending word/sentence and then leave a note on my talk page. I think it is against the good faith principle that you quote at the top of your page to leave comments such as "Someone's at it again. If you don't understand what tonnage is, don't use it as a measure. It may "sound" right, but it's got nothing whatsover to do with the point that is trying to be made." I know perfectly well what tonnage is and how it can be used, rightly or wrongly, to measure a Navy's strength. I was simply trying to improve the article. Woodym555 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult, but if you know what tonnage is, why were you using it to describe something that it is not used to measure? We might as well say that the combined draughts of the Royal Navy have decreased over the same period. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if i seemed a bit heavy handed with my earlier reply, it was a sense of indignation i suppose. It is hard to fully understand peoples tone through straight text. I should have probably used gross tonnage although that does not take into account the changing weapons systems and power of each particular unit. I know that Daring has almost as much "firepower" or capability as the whole class of Type 42's. Yet in a broad sense i think gross tonnage is useful when considering the decline in the fleet. It is after all used by politicians and knowledgeable observers alike. ;) Woodym555 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In your map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_shipping_forecast_zones.png I think you have Jersey and Channel Light Vessel Automatic the wrong way around. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ShippingZones2.JPG Flux 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, fixed! Emoscopes ^Talk 12:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidy-up and adding some more wikilinks to the build and cost table for the Lion class battlecruiser. If you get a chance, please could you do the same for the following:

As you will see I have been adding these tables for the progression of British armoured/1st class protected/battle-cruisers.

Thanks for helping.--Toddy1 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tidy-up of this article. I have a particular interest in this ship as my late father served in her during WW2, but I have been able to find out little more than what I added to the article. If you come across any more information, I'd be pleased to see it. Rodparkes 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just about finished adding inline citations to the article Captain class frigate however I have left the Machinery section untouched because you(?) used a book which I don't have as the source (British and Empire Warships of the Second World War, H T Lenton, 1998, Greenhill Books, ISBN 1-85367-277-7), now I can if necessary cite sources I do have as none disagree with yours but I can't but help feel it is better if the author does the citing. (nb: thanks for the clean up on the ref tags). Thefrood 18:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that between us we have made pretty fine page. I would like to a section on the paint job (Camouflage and Insignia?) and I'm not to happy with the first sentence of the third paragraph of the History section (perhaps you could have a look? It needs (IMHO) to state why the lack of tubes was important to its classification).

I do however now see a problem of sorts and was hoping you could help, the Captain class frigate was essentially a sub-set of the USN Destroyer Escort and I cannot help feeling that the Destroyer Escort article sucks in comparison to the Captain Class article - do you know anywhere that I can politely suggest that the Destroyer Escort article may be in need of review/update?
--Thefrood 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Already joined :) --Thefrood 22:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Camouflage and Insignia bit, I'm still not sure about the positioning of the section. I've also added a bit about the Normandy HQ ships to the Royal Navy alterations section plus doing one or two other bits and bobs... so I was wondering if you could give the article a quick once over? --Thefrood 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest additions, I played with the wording a bit as we seemed to be repeating the Oerlikon information.

I also have a request (and before I go any further can I just say I DO realise what a huge pain in the rear this will be), I have been converting the References to a slightly more formal style (at the time of posting this I still have the Operations section to review) and was hoping that you could take a look at your "BEWWW2" references and update them accordingly (no rush), many thanks --Thefrood 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It shouldnt be a problem, it's pulled off of only 3 or 4 pages. Bare with me and I'll get it done over the weekend, it's the least I can do considering the amount of effort you've put in. Emoscopes ^Talk 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as I said no rush, the u-boat sinking table may take me a while to do as my copy of Niestle's German U-Boat Losses During World War II is located approximately 200 miles away from where I am :/ Incidentally, in your book is there any mention of a Lewis gun being fitted on the bridge? (I'm about to post more on this Captain class talk page) --Thefrood 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

coughs* --Thefrood 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a mention of a Lewis gun, but it is entirely likely these were fitted, as they would have been to most vessels. Lenton isn't exhaustive when it comes to these more minor editions, he doesn't tend to cover weapons below the 0.5 inch Vickers guns. I suppose the array and non-standard nature of the fitting of Lewis, Savage, Hotchkiss would be nigh impossible to accurately document in a book of this scope and accuracy. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You are a bit more experienced here than I am, have you any idea what has happened to the flag in the infobox? (it is not showing)--Thefrood 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Emoscopes, thank you for your edits to the Caledonian Sleeper article and for helping to make it a better feature. I notice that you now live in Edinburgh, the station at which the three parts of the Highlander sleeper are joined on their Southern journey.

I think it might be an intriguing side-note to add to the Caledonian Sleeper article, that the sleeper is responsible for transporting some of the last remaining freight carried on passenger trains within Britain. I'm wondering if it would be possible to get a picture of the filled luggage van; the other option is find somebody who can go to Euston at ~07:00 in the morning when the fish crates get unloaded onto the platform—which might make a better picture as the words "Caledonian Sleeper" are on the coach body and in the summer there should be more light around in the morning for taking good pictures.

The train is assembled in the order below (west-to-east) and timetabled to depart Waverley at 01:14 Monday-Saturday (Sunday-Friday evenings). The important coach in question is the one in bold (ex-Inverness Seats/Luggage/Guards van). Note that Waverley station offically closes at 00:45, so being around for the arrival of the Inverness (which is backed on from the end) requires cunning. It will also need the cooperation of the guard to enable the central locking.

Loco	Aberdeen						Fort William		Inverness
Loco	Seats	Buffet	Sleepers x 6						Seats	Buffet	Sleepers x 6
oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo	oo—oo

Once again, thanks for your spelling improvements. —Sladen 15:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Emoscopes, thank you for your changes to the Caledonian Sleeper article introducting a new route map. There is a further version of a WP:TRAIL route map at Template:Caledonian Sleeper which is incomplete as it's lacking a couple of Km distances I haven't found a verified source for yet:

Waverley→Westerton
Stirling→Perth

If you know of a source for where to find the missing distances (I used the Thomas Cook European Rail Timetable) these can then be added to the totals to Edinburgh and the totals for the Inverness and West Highland Line portions. —Sladen 13:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just popping over to say thank you for the Barnstar :D --Thefrood 02:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WP:Ships documentation revamp, I'd like to come up with some barnstar designs. Got any great ideas? Maralia 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emoscopes, I recently saw your magnificant work with Image:Access card.png and a long while back you drew up several logos for British Telecom. I was wondering if you could draw one up for Midland Bank, a graphitied version of the logo can be found here if you would be so kind. Many thanks, CR7 (message me) 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I will definitely do this when I have my drawing software back up and running. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Commons:Image:Caledonian Sleeper branding.png, has been listed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AC Best 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC) --AC Best 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

YYes you are absolutely right. I have moved this to a fair-use image on Wikipedia main. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eden Roc album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Armstrong Siddeley.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As you know I think you have done a great job with Template:BAE Systems evolution and Template:British Shipbuilders evolution. However is there any way you can make the default that they are collapsed/hidden? Mark83 15:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Done Emoscopes ^Talk 15:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I've listed BAE Systems as a FAC and the default set to "show" was sort of distracting. Thanks again for making them in the first place and for changing them today. Mark83 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NP, I always meant to do it, I just never got round to learning how!! Emoscopes ^Talk 16:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I jump the gun on you on List of early warships of the English Navy? Benea 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha Jinxed! not at all, I had only got as far as the 1st paragraph, I'll play with what you've done. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Think of how long we've wanted to start splitting it up and then we do it at the same time! What are the odds! I've included up to 1660, so I've got all the ones of the pre-Royal Navy period. Ok with you? Any ideas as for the next sections? Benea 22:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BEA logo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good! thanks for telling me, Fixed--OsamaK 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just letting you know how {{DEFAULTSORT}} should be used — {{DEFAULTSORT:key}} should be used, and not {{DEFAULTSORT|key}}. (See Template:DEFAULTSORT/doc.) Cheers! --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! I feel like an idiot, I already new this, but was copying and pasting bad code as I bulk added this to articles. Thanks for the heads up, I've fixed the instances that you didn't already catch. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I only really started using DEFAULTSORT recently — I could have easily made the same mistake. --StuartBrady (Talk) 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Caledonian sleeper branding.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

in Silver with a yellow ribbon has been awarded
Emoscopes
on March 22, 2007
for the work with the 3D-drawings of
aircraft

Thank you for your amazing edit here, but it has an internal info conflict. Can you double check your refs please?
You have I18 -> Kempenfelt -> Assiniboine and H00 -> Comet -> Restigouche (per table)
but Kempenfelt -> Restigouche (per text) Cheers, LeadSongDog 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

done Emoscopes ^Talk 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.LeadSongDog 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)